"Otherwise, it is back to the soldering iron hacking that SS WLAN gear."
This is not what anyone wanted to hear...if we're talking about cracking cases open on certified gear or messing with certified systems...screw the warranty - there is NO provision allowed for modifying certified equipment or systems into an out of certification status.
Hacking at/into a manufactured and certified device or system is clearly NOT home-built, anymore than opening up a 100 mW CB walkie-talkie to add an external antenna jack or boost the power beyond 100 mW somehow. If I feel like a good read I'll find the part that talks about tampering with certified equipment...
And somewhere in Part 15 is a clause about attached/inclusive/built-in antennas and 100 mW limit.
Otherwise - I know less than a handful of qualified engineers in the Bay Area who could actually homebrew and 802.11b device, and fewer that would want to (who work IN this field and could do it, from silicon on up.) Except for the "I can do that, watch this..." aspect of it, buying an AP and a NIC seem a helluva lot easier - unless you want to do something outside of the realm of legal and practical issues.
Why the heck do we want to keep dragging lawyers and the government into this? In plain U.S. government-ese English language we are pretty well bounded on many sides. We have what we have which is a fair bit more significant and beneficial in the long run than licensed operation, MMDS, etc. - all expensive and impractical for the intended purposes. Otherwise, the legislative, legal and proposed rule making processes exist to submit proper changes.
7. Re: 15.23... (Jeff King)
Message: 7
To: Tim Pozar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [BAWUG] 15.23...
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 16:52:53 -0600 (CST)
From: Jeff King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Jeff King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You should have just left it at:
> I agree that having a policy statement or ruling from the FCC would
> be helpful. In that case, your interpretation may be just as valid
> as mine. I just disagree with your take on 15.23.
As to the rest, it is just idle speculation on both our parts.
Can I suggest your time is better spent writing the FCC and asking for a
clarification if what you are looking for is to make a point on the mailing
list? That is all I was asking for... facts, not armchair lawyering. I'll
happily fall on my sword at that point if I am mistaken. Otherwise, it is back
to the soldering iron hacking that SS WLAN gear.
-Jeff
P.S. What TAPR tried to do was done under part 97, not part 15.
======================================================== Jim Aspinwall - [EMAIL PROTECTED] "lack of (the right) information is a dangerous thing" B.A.R.F. UHF Repeater - 443.750 - San Jose PL 100 - Vaca PL 127.3 ========================================================
-- general wireless list, a bawug thing <http://www.bawug.org/> [un]subscribe: http://lists.bawug.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
